Hooda-Rajan Warfare Study Gains NATO-Linked Recognition

A strategic framework developed by two retired Indian Army officers has received international recognition after being cited extensively in a European publication on Hybrid Warfare. Lieutenant General DS Hooda (Retd) and Lieutenant Colonel Pavithran Rajan (Retd) authored Beyond the Kinetic: Deconstructing Warfare in the Socio-Technical-Cognitive Battlespace, a January 2026 study published by the New Delhi-based Council for Strategic and Defense Research (CSDR).

Their work has subsequently been cited at least 10 times in a chapter on artificial intelligence and cognitive warfare in the publication Hybrid War: Threats to Power Grid Infrastructure. The European work was produced under the R-GRID project, which is supported through NATO‘s Science for Peace and Security Programme.

The recognition was highlighted by former Indian Army chief General VK Singh, who described the international uptake of the framework as a “landmark achievement for Indian strategic thought” in the hybrid, cognitive and technological domains.

The development is significant because it places an Indian-origin conceptual framework at the centre of an international discussion about how warfare is changing. Rather than viewing conflict purely through the lens of soldiers, missiles, aircraft and physical targets, the Hooda-Rajan framework examines the interaction between society, technology, information and human decision-making.

What did Hooda and Rajan’s paper actually propose?

The January 2026 CSDR paper argues that modern conflict can no longer be understood adequately by focusing only on the kinetic battlefield.

Kinetic warfare refers broadly to the physical use of military force: attacking troops, destroying infrastructure, striking weapons systems and capturing territory. Those elements remain fundamental to war, but the authors argue that they now operate within a much larger Environment where information, technology and human cognition can influence strategic outcomes.

They call this broader environment the Socio-Technical-Cognitive Battlespace (STCB).

The framework treats modern warfare as an interconnected system. Social structures influence how populations respond to crises. Digital platforms determine how information is distributed. Algorithms can amplify some narratives while suppressing others. Technology shapes the speed at which information moves between civilians, institutions and military organisations.

The combined effect can influence how societies interpret events and how governments make decisions.

Why the “socio-technical-cognitive” idea matters

The central insight of the Hooda-Rajan framework is that physical military superiority does not automatically guarantee strategic advantage.

An adversary may attempt to weaken an opponent without directly defeating its armed forces. It can target public confidence, exploit social divisions, disrupt information flows or create uncertainty inside institutions.

In such an environment, the battlefield extends into Smartphones, social-media platforms, critical infrastructure networks and public institutions.

The authors argue that this does not make traditional warfare irrelevant. Instead, kinetic action and information warfare increasingly operate together.

A missile strike can have a physical effect on infrastructure, for example, while coordinated information operations can influence how citizens interpret the attack, whether they trust official responses and how quickly a government can mobilise support.

The important shift is therefore from thinking about war as a series of isolated attacks to understanding it as a connected system of physical, technological, social and cognitive effects.

Cognitive warfare is at the centre of the framework

One of the paper’s most important concepts is cognitive warfare.

At its simplest, cognitive warfare involves attempts to influence how people perceive information, interpret events and make decisions. It differs from ordinary propaganda because modern digital platforms allow influence operations to become faster, more targeted and potentially more scalable.

The CSDR study argues that adversaries can exploit existing social divisions rather than creating divisions from scratch. Information operations can identify existing grievances and use algorithms, online communities and emotionally powerful narratives to increase their impact.

The objective is not always to make people believe a completely fabricated story. Sometimes the objective can simply be to create enough uncertainty that people no longer know which information to trust.

That can be strategically useful during a crisis because confusion itself can slow decision-making.

AI could make cognitive warfare more precise

The emergence of artificial intelligence adds another dimension to the problem.

Hooda and Rajan argue that AI can potentially make information manipulation more sophisticated by allowing actors to produce customised messages for different audiences.

Instead of distributing one identical piece of propaganda, an AI-enabled operation could theoretically generate multiple versions designed around the cultural, emotional or political characteristics of different groups.

That could increase both the scale and precision of influence operations.

The authors therefore treat AI not simply as another military technology but as a force that can alter the information environment itself.

Their concern extends to the ability of AI to accelerate content production, automate parts of influence campaigns and exploit vulnerabilities in an increasingly algorithm-driven public sphere.

From the OODA loop to cognitive dominance

The NATO-linked European publication built on several of these ideas, particularly in its discussion of the OODA loop.

OODA stands for Observe, Orient, Decide and Act. The concept, associated with US Air Force strategist Colonel John Boyd, describes a decision-making cycle through which an actor observes a changing environment, interprets it, decides what to do and acts on that decision.

The faster and more effectively a force can move through the cycle, the greater its potential advantage.

But contemporary cognitive warfare introduces another possibility: rather than merely completing the cycle faster, an adversary can attempt to disrupt the opponent’s cycle.

That can involve confusing the information available during the observation stage, distorting interpretation during orientation or creating enough uncertainty to delay decision-making.

This is where the STCB framework becomes particularly relevant to the international publication. The focus moves from battlefield speed alone to control over the information and cognitive environment surrounding military decisions.

The European study cited the Indian framework 10 times

The publication Hybrid War: Threats to Power Grid Infrastructure was authored by Professor Jarosław Tomasiewicz, Dr Michal Piekarski and Dr Marcin Lipka.

It was published by the Polish Association for National Security and developed under the R-GRID project, which focuses on the use of AI algorithms for threat prediction and power-grid protection.

The project is supported through NATO’s Science for Peace and Security Programme, making the connection to NATO significant. However, the publication should be described accurately as a NATO-supported or NATO-linked research output rather than as a paper written by NATO itself.

Within the chapter titled “AI & Cognitive Warfare,” the authors cite the Hooda-Rajan framework at least 10 times.

The repeated references are notable because they indicate that the Indian study was not used merely as a passing source. Its concepts were incorporated into the European publication’s examination of AI, decision-making, infrastructure vulnerability and contemporary hybrid warfare.

Why repeated citation is more significant than a single mention

Academic and policy publications often cite foreign research for background or comparison. Ten references to the same framework within a single chapter indicate something more substantial: the concepts developed by Hooda and Rajan were relevant to the authors’ central argument.

Their work provided a conceptual lens through which the European researchers examined how modern warfare can connect technology, information, infrastructure and human cognition.

This is particularly significant because strategic studies are increasingly being shaped by ideas developed outside traditional Western military institutions.

Indian strategic thought has historically been more visible in South Asian security discussions than in European research on hybrid warfare. The international use of the STCB framework demonstrates that Indian researchers and military veterans can contribute concepts that travel beyond India’s immediate regional environment.

General VK Singh calls it a landmark achievement

Former Army Chief and former Union minister General VK Singh publicly highlighted the development in a post on X.

Singh praised Hooda, a former Northern Army Commander, and Rajan for developing what he described as a pioneering theoretical framework. He specifically pointed to the framework’s extensive citation in the NATO co-funded publication’s chapter on AI and cognitive warfare.

Singh described the recognition as a “landmark achievement for Indian strategic thought” across the hybrid, cognitive and technological domains.

His intervention matters because Hooda and Rajan are both former military officers, rather than academics working exclusively within a university environment. Their research therefore represents a bridge between operational military experience and contemporary strategic theory.

How the paper applies lessons from the Russia-Ukraine war

The Russia-Ukraine war is a major reference point in the Hooda-Rajan study.

The conflict has demonstrated how military operations can depend on satellite communications, drones, commercial technology, online information networks and rapid digital decision-making.

The authors use examples from the war to illustrate how technology and information can influence battlefield resilience even when physical forces face severe pressure.

The European publication picked up several of these examples while discussing how technology can support military operations and how hybrid attacks can target critical infrastructure.

One example concerns Ukraine’s use of privately operated satellite communications, particularly Starlink. The system has helped Ukraine maintain communications during a conflict in which conventional infrastructure has repeatedly been targeted or disrupted.

The example demonstrates a wider STCB principle: infrastructure that may appear civilian or commercial can become strategically important during war because modern military effectiveness depends on connectivity.

Clearview AI and the information side of the war

The European publication also references the Hooda-Rajan study in its discussion of Ukraine’s use of Clearview AI.

Clearview’s facial-recognition technology has been reported as being used to identify Russian personnel through publicly available images and social-media databases.

The example illustrates another feature of contemporary conflict: information collected from civilian digital environments can become relevant to military intelligence.

Social-media profiles, publicly available photographs and online databases can be combined with AI-powered recognition technologies to identify individuals.

This blurs the boundary between civilian information systems and military intelligence operations, one of the structural changes highlighted by the STCB framework.

Power grids are becoming part of the battlespace

The wider European publication focuses heavily on critical power-grid infrastructure, and this is another area where the Hooda-Rajan framework becomes useful.

Modern societies depend on electricity for almost everything, from communications and financial systems to hospitals, transportation and industrial production.

Attacking a power grid therefore does more than destroy physical equipment. A successful disruption can affect public confidence, government operations and economic activity at the same time.

That creates a direct connection between infrastructure warfare and cognitive warfare.

A Blackout can create fear and uncertainty. Disinformation can exaggerate the scale of the damage. False claims can trigger panic buying or undermine trust in authorities. The combined effect can be greater than the physical damage alone.

The emerging model of hybrid warfare therefore increasingly treats infrastructure and perception as interconnected targets.

Why artificial intelligence changes the infrastructure threat

AI introduces additional possibilities for both attackers and defenders of critical infrastructure.

On the offensive side, AI could potentially support automated reconnaissance, identify patterns in complex systems, generate deceptive content or accelerate cyber operations. On the defensive side, the same technology can help detect anomalies, predict failures, identify attacks and support rapid response.

The R-GRID project’s focus reflects this dual-use nature of AI.

Its objective is not simply to study how infrastructure can be attacked but also how AI can improve resilience and threat prediction.

This is one reason the research sits at the intersection of technology policy and national security.

Hybrid warfare is no longer limited to conventional military forces

The international discussion around hybrid warfare has evolved significantly over the past decade.

Initially, the term was often associated with combinations of conventional military force, irregular warfare and political pressure. Today, the concept increasingly includes cyberattacks, disinformation, economic coercion, infrastructure disruption, social-media manipulation and AI-enabled influence operations.

That broader interpretation aligns closely with Hooda and Rajan’s central argument.

The modern battlefield does not have a fixed geographical boundary. An adversary can operate through digital infrastructure in one country, influence audiences in another and affect strategic decisions thousands of kilometres away.

This means national security increasingly requires governments to think beyond conventional defence ministries and armed forces.

The need for “cognitive resilience”

One of the practical conclusions of the Indian paper is the need to strengthen cognitive resilience.

Cognitive resilience is the ability of individuals, institutions and societies to process information without becoming excessively vulnerable to manipulation.

The authors point to measures such as media literacy, stronger institutions, better coordination between agencies and greater scrutiny of foreign-controlled digital platforms.

The objective is not to eliminate disagreement or prevent citizens from encountering controversial information. Instead, it is to make societies more capable of identifying manipulation and resisting deliberate attempts to exploit social divisions.

This becomes especially important during wartime, elections, major disasters and other crises when people are searching for information quickly and official channels may struggle to keep pace.

Why India’s strategic community should pay attention

The international reception of the Hooda-Rajan study has significance for India’s own security debate.

India faces a security environment in which military threats, cyber operations, disinformation and technological competition increasingly overlap. China’s technological capabilities, Pakistan-linked information operations and the rapid spread of AI-enabled content all create challenges that cannot be addressed solely through conventional military strength.

The STCB framework offers a way to connect those separate issues.

It encourages policymakers to think about how cyber infrastructure, social cohesion, data flows and military operations interact instead of treating them as independent security categories.

That systems-level approach may become increasingly important as AI is embedded in communications, intelligence, military systems and civilian infrastructure.

From battlefield superiority to decision-making superiority

Perhaps the most important conceptual shift in the paper is its emphasis on decision-making.

Traditional military assessments often focus on the number of troops, aircraft, missiles, ships or tanks available to each side. Those factors remain important, but modern conflict can also be shaped by who understands the situation faster, whose information is more reliable and whose institutions can maintain public confidence under pressure.

In this environment, an adversary may seek to damage the opponent’s ability to make good decisions rather than simply destroy its weapons.

That is where cognitive warfare becomes strategically important.

The objective is not necessarily to control every person or persuade every citizen. Even a relatively small disruption in trust or institutional coordination can create delays at critical moments.

India’s defence research is gaining a wider audience

The international citation also highlights the growing importance of independent Indian strategic research.

CSDR’s work on geopolitical risk, national security and emerging technologies reflects a broader ecosystem of think tanks and researchers examining India’s position in an increasingly technology-driven security environment.

Hooda’s previous experience as Northern Army Commander and Rajan’s background in the Indian Army and technology research give their work a distinctive perspective.

The significance of the recognition is therefore not merely personal. It demonstrates that research emerging from India’s strategic community can contribute to wider international debates about the future of warfare.

What the NATO connection actually means

The phrase “NATO-funded” can easily create confusion.

The international publication was not authored by NATO, nor does its citation of the Indian paper represent an official NATO endorsement of every argument made by Hooda and Rajan.

Rather, the publication is associated with a research project supported through NATO’s Science for Peace and Security Programme.

That distinction matters for factual accuracy. The international recognition lies in the fact that the Indian framework was incorporated into a European research publication produced within a NATO-supported research environment.

Its repeated citation nonetheless demonstrates that the STCB concept has relevance beyond India’s own strategic-policy community.

Why the recognition comes at the right time

The timing is especially significant because AI is changing the speed and scale of warfare.

Military organisations are increasingly examining autonomous systems, AI-assisted intelligence, cyber operations, algorithmic influence and automated decision-support tools.

At the same time, civilian digital platforms have become part of the information environment in which wars are fought and perceived.

The distinction between a military operation and an information operation is therefore becoming harder to maintain.

The Hooda-Rajan framework attempts to capture precisely that convergence.

The bigger lesson from the Hooda-Rajan framework

Modern warfare is becoming less about where the battlefield is and more about how interconnected systems behave under pressure.

A physical attack can trigger an information campaign. An information campaign can influence public behaviour. Public reactions can affect government decision-making. Cyber disruptions can weaken infrastructure. AI can accelerate each stage.

That chain of effects means military planners increasingly need to understand not just weapons, but algorithms, networks, public psychology and institutional resilience.

This is the deeper significance of the Socio-Technical-Cognitive Battlespace idea.

A landmark moment for Indian strategic thought

The recognition of Beyond the Kinetic by an international publication supported through NATO’s Science for Peace and Security Programme marks a noteworthy moment for Indian strategic scholarship.

Lt Gen DS Hooda and Lt Col Pavithran Rajan’s study began with a relatively simple observation: wars are no longer decided solely by what happens on the physical battlefield.

Its development into a framework examining the interaction of society, technology, information and cognition has now attracted repeated international references.

General VK Singh’s description of the recognition as a landmark achievement reflects the broader importance of that development. The value of the paper is not simply that two Indian veterans were cited by foreign researchers. It is that an Indian framework has entered a wider conversation about one of the defining security challenges of the AI era.

As warfare continues to evolve beyond conventional battlefields, the ability to understand and defend the information, technological and cognitive layers of conflict will become increasingly important.

The international reception of the Hooda-Rajan framework suggests that Indian strategic thought is increasingly contributing to that conversation not merely observing how warfare is changing, but helping define the concepts used to understand it.